The Sun. — London, England, 1864-07-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 5, 1864. nett day by Lord Cowley, representing the opinions of the French Government. He said—"As to the Four Powers impressing upon the Diet the heavy responsibility that it would it .cur, if by any precipitate measures it should break the pee ce before the Conference which had been proposed by the; British Government for considering the means of sett. log the question between Germany and Denmark, and then eby maintaining the peace, can be assembled. M. Drot tyn de Lhays observed, that he had not forgotten that whet a Russia had been warned by France, Great Britain, and Austria, of the responsibility she was incurring by her cond:uct towards Poland, Prince Gortachakoff had replied that "Russia wee ready to assume that responsibility before God altd man.' He, for one, did not wish to provoke ano ther answer of the same sort, to be received with the same indifference." The interest of the drama deepens. The next day Lord Russell writes to Lord Cowley, and pro poses concert and co-operation with France. Lord Cow ley writes the next day to Lord Russell that the French Governm ant want to know what "concert and co-opera tion" me: an. Lord Russell writes that "concert and co operation" mean, if necessary, material assistance to Den mark. ( Opposition ironical cheers.) That must have been about the same time that the Cabinet was sitting to draw up her Majesty's speech, and when we were being assumd that negotiations were continued in the in terests of pe ace. (Renewed Opposition cheers and laughter.) Now what was the answer of the French Government, when at last En gland had invited France to go to war, in order to settle tl to questions between Germany and. Denmark? The right hon. gentleman then read a despatch from Lord Cowley Earl Russell, eetting forth that while the French Emperor recognised the value of the London treaty, a war with Germany was the most burdensome and hazardous that France could undertake, especially when he (the Em peror) remembered that he was an object of mistrust and suspicion to Europe, on account of his supposed projects re lative to the. Rhine. For these reasons the Government of the Emperor declined to make any engagement on the sub ject of Denmark. Well, after having received that despatch —although it may be very hard to convince the Secretary of State—the noble lord might have begun to suspect chat the great influence of England was lowered in another quarter of E u rope. i(flear, hear.) I have now brought events down to the point of the meeting of Parliament—but I will not dwell on - selaat then occurred. When we met there were no papers b' afore us. I asked for papers, and I felt at the time that on neither side of the house was there a sufficient sense of the great importance of the occ sion, and of the singular circumstance that papers had not been presented to us. I remember it turned out afterwards that it never was intended that papers should be presented at the meeting of Parliament. Subsequently, however, the noble lord at the head of the Gavernment, treating the matter in his jaunty manner, said, "You shall have papers, and I wish you joy of them." That was the tone in which the First Minister spoke of the most important diplomatic correspondence that has been presented to Parliament since the treaty of Amiens. Weeks and weeks elapsed before we were really masters of the case; but during the interval most alarming and distres sing circurstances had occurred—circumstances involving the great est perplexities. You all remember Jutland ; you all remember the inquiries made on the subject, and the as sarau ces given by the Government. It was impossible for us to act, because al that time we had not these papers be fore us, and the moment we had the Conference was an -.flounced Now, one word about the Conference. I myself had no hope that the Conference would arrive at any advan tageous results ; and, after reading these papers, I cannot fail to perceive that no side wished for a settlement of the question—except, of course, her Majesty's Government. (Laughter.) The Conference lasted six weeks, or rather it wasted six weeks, It lasted as long as a carnival, and, like a carnival, it was an affair of masks and mystificaions. (Laughter and cheers.) The summary of the Conference was this—Her Majesty's Government made considerable proposals to the Conference. They proposed, first, the dis memberment of Denmark. (Opposition cheers.) So mach for its integrity. (Continued cheering.) They proposed, secon ily, that the remainder of Denmark should be placed under the joint guarantee of, the great Powers. They would have created another Turkey in Europe—the scene of the same rival intrigues and the constant source of misappre hension and frequent wars. Now, I ask the house what is its opinion with respect to the management of these affairs ? I have shown at the beginning that this interference of England originated in a treaty in which we incurred no obligations different from those of France. I have shown you, upon the evidence of the Secretary of State himself, that the position of Franca in regard to Denmark is one quite magnanimous and free from all perplexities. I have :shown you, on the other hand, that the position of England is mast embarrassing, intolerably difficult, and full of humi liation. (Cheers.) I have narrated to you how your affairs are managed—and now, what is your opinion ? Do you see in the management of these affairs that capacity which is adequate to the occasion—that sagacity, that prudence, that dexterity, that quickness of perception, and those con ciliatory moods which you always hold to be necessary for the transaction of your foreign affairs ? (Cheers.) Is that the knowledge of human nature, and especially that pecu liar kind of science most necessary in these affaioi—aknow ledge of the character of foreign countries and of the chief actors on the scene ? For my own part I find all these qua lities wanting, and in consequence I see that three results have accrued—lst, that the avowed policy of England has. failed; 2d, that our great influence in the councils of Europe has been lowered—(cheers)-- and 3d, that in con sequence of our great influence in the councils of Europe being lowered, the securities for peace are diminished, Th ese are the three consequences which have oc curred owing to the want of qua.itiee to which I have alluded and in consequence of the management of these affairs by the Governm-nt. I need not trouble the house with addi tional argument to prove that the Government have failed in accomplishing their avowed policy of upholding the in dependence and integrity of D almark. (Hear, hear.) The result rray for the present be thrown aside. I come, there • fore, to the second. By the just influence of England in the councils of Europe I mean an influence contradistin guished from that which is obtained by intrigue and secret understandings—l mean the ii:fluence that results from the conviction of foreign Powers that out resources are great and that our policy is moderate and stedfast. (Hear.) Since the settlement that followed the great revolutionary war England,who obtained at that time, as she deserved to do— for she bore the brunt of the struggle—all the fair objects of her ambition, England has upon the whole proceeded on a Conservative foreign policy. I do not mean by a Conser vative foreign policy a policy that would disapprove, still less oppose, the natural development of nations, but I mean a foreign policy that is interested in the tranquillity and the prosperity of the world, whose normal condition is peace— (cheers)—and which does not ally itself with the revolu tionary party of Europe. (Hear, hear.) Other countries have their political systems and their public objects, as England has, though they may not be obtained by them The position of England is, therefore, in the conduct o public affairs andein the councils of Europe, essentially that of a moderating and mediational Power. Her interest and her policy are, when changes are inevitable and necessary, to assist, so that these changes, if possible, shall be accom plished without war, or, if war occurs, that its duration and its asperity shall be mitigated. That is what I mean by the just influence of England. It appears to ma that this just influence of Europe has been—l will not say forfeited, but has been Bimini-het. Within 12mcnths we have been twice repulsed at St. Petersburg ; we have supplicated more than once at Paris ; we have menaced Austria, and Austria has allowed our threats to pass over like the wind. (Hear, hear.) We have threatened Pt uesia ; Prussia has defied us. Oar ob jurgations have rattled over the heads of the German Diet, and the Getman Diet has treated them with contempt. During the last few months there is scarcely any form or diplomatic interference that has not been suggested and adopted by the English Government, except a Congress, (Laughter.) A Conference of Vienna, a Conference of Paris, a Conference of London, all in their turn have been suggested. Joint mediation, sole mediation, original notes, relative notes, ieentic notes, sole notes, or notes joint and separate. (Laughter.) Couriers have been scou ins E u rope in exuberant rapidity ; and last, a n d most r of all, a Conference was held in the Cabinet of our Queen, over which the chief Minister of our foreign relations presided, which was attended with all the pomp and solem nity requisite for so great en enterprise ; but we find that its sittings have been perfectly barren, and the chief Mini sters of the Crown closed the proceedings by quitting the battle .scene of their exertions, and appearing• in the two Houses of Parliament to tell the country we have no allies, and because we hav e no allies England cannot act alone (Loud cheers by th% ConeervatiYee.) I do not undertake to do justice to the eaniting boast of the Secretary of State, in the bitterest rnoraent of his discomfiture, when he seemed to take consolation for the moment even in the sympathy and politeness of the neut ral p owers . I do not grudge Lord Russell the sighs of Ramia or the smiles of France ; but I regret that, with the c haracteristic indiscretion in his present forlorn state, he should have quitted the Cjnfer ence, and to hays taken his seat in the Rouse of Lords to denounce the peifily of Prussia and to uiZurn over the ficklene-s of Austria. There wanted but on e touch to com plete the picture, and it was supplied by the noble lord the First Minister of the Crown. I listened with astonishment —(loud cheers by the Conservatives)--1 listened with netonishment to the noble lord 39 lie denounced the vices of his victim, and inveighed at the last moment over te obstinacy of unhappy Denmark; Denmark which would rot submit to an arbitration, an arbitration which the German Powers would not have accepted. And what ecurity had Denmark, when in the Conference she could not be assured that the neutral Powers would have recourse to force to secure her the line of the Schlei—what security had she that any other line wou d be secured to her by an unknown arbitrator? (Hear, hear.) It does appear to me impossible to deny that, under these eircarnstances, the influence of England, the just influence of England in the councils of Europe, is lowered. (Cheers.) Nova I ask, what are the consequences of this just influence in the councils of Euros• having been lowered? I say the consequences are, to use a frequent phrase of despatches, "most serious" because, in exact pro portion as the just influence of England in the councils of Europe is lowered, I say the securities of peace are dimi nished. (Hear, hear.) I lay this down as a great principle which cannot be controverted, in the management of our foreign affairs. If England has resolved ou a particular policy, war is not probable; if there be, under the circum stances, a cordial alliance between England and France, war is most difficult ; and if there be a thorough understanding between England, France, and Russia, I say war is impos sible. (Conservative cheers.) These were the ha, py con ditions under which her Majesty's Ministers entered upon this matter, and which they enjoyed when they began to Manage this question of Denmark. (Hear.) Ts o years ago, and much less, there was a cordial understanding between England, France, and Russia upon that question, or upon any question that might arise. They might look forward to the future with every confidence in the enjoyment of peace. (Hear, hear). They might look forward to a period when they would have accomplished all they could have desired for the public good. Bat what has hap pened ? They have alienated Russia, they have estranged France, and then they call Parliament together to declare war against Germany. (Cheers.) Why, such a thing never happened before in the history of this country ; nay, more, I say never can happen again. I look upon it as one of those portentous occurrences that sometimes take place to humiliate the pride of nations, and to lower their confi dence. (Loud cheers.) As difficulties increased—as ob stacles before them mounted—as they were multiplied, as a consequence of their perpetual errors and constant mis takes—yet more piteously have they exhibited themselves. You always find that her Majesty's Ministers are near war. As in private life you always find that it is the weak who are violent, so it is with her Majesty's Government, So long as the cordial feeling with the great Powers existed they spoke with moderation—they counselled with dignity ; but, like all incompetent men, the moment they are in extreme difficulties they conduct themselves in a way that is ludicrous and false, and the affairs of the country cannot be arranged by the resources they possess. See the de spatches that have been written—that memorable despatch which was sent to St. Petersburg in January about going to war against Germany. Then we went twice to Paris, entreating the Emperor to assist us in consequence of our mistakes. It is only by giving them credit, as I do through out, for complete sincerity of expressions and conduct, that the behaviour of the Government is at all explicable. As sume that their policy was a war policy, and it is quite in telligible, but when difficulties arise, then they instantly have recourse to violence in every word they utter. Every despatch they write seems to look to a scene of collision. What is the state of Europe at this moment, produced by the mismanagement of our affairs ? I know not what other hon gentlemen may think, but to me it seems most serious. I find the great German Powers openly avowing that they have not the capacity to fulfil their engagements. I find Eurape impotent to vindicate the public law, because a great alliance has been broken up; and I find a Government of a great, proud, and generous nation like England, with the reserve of magnanimity, shrinking from the responsibility of undertaking war, and sensitively smarting under the im pression that her honour is stained, and stained by pledges which I maintain ought not to have been given, and expec • tations which I maintain ought never to have been held out by wise and competent statesmen. (Cheers.) It appears to me, therefore, obvious that her Majesty's Government have failed in their avowed policy to maintain the integrity and independence of Denmark. It appears to me undeniable that the great influence of England in the councils of Europe has been lowered, and it appears to me that the consequence of this lowering of our influence is t o diminish the security for the maintenance of peace. (Cheers.) And what defence have we ? If a criticism is made en his ambiguous policy, the noble lord says to me, " What is your policy ?" (Ministerial cheers and counter-cheers.) I say my policy is the honour of England. (Laughter and cheers.) The honour of England and the peace of Europe—and the noble lord has betrayed both. (Conser vative cheers.) I can understand a Minister coming to Parliament when there is a question of domestic interest of the highest character—the emancipation of the Catholics, the principle on which our commercial code is to be esta blished, or our representative system founded. I can under stand a Minister, though I think it a weak point, saying upon these questions he would leave Parliament to decide what should be their policy. Parliament is in possession of all the information on these subjects that is necessary or that can he obtained. Parliament is as competent to come to judgment as the Ministers themselves upon such ques tions. But it is quite a new doctrine in Parliament to ap peal to Parliament to initiate a foreign policy. (Cheers.) That is a prerogative of the Crown, exercised under the advice of responsible Ministers, It is devised, invented, carried on in secresy, and justly and wisely so. What do we know what is going on in Downing -street at this mo ment ? For aught I know, the noble lord may have made this morning another propcsiticn which may light up a general European war. (Hear, hear.) It is for Parliament to inquire, to criticise, to support or condemn our foreign affairs, but it is not for them to initiate a foreign policy, in absolute ignorance of the real state of affairs. As well might you ask them to set a house on fire. I go further. He is not a wise, I am sure he is not a patriotic man, who, in a crisis like the present, would accept office under conditions which might be found not only unwise but impossible to act upon. No, sir, we must not allow her Majesty's Mi nisters to escape from their responsibility. (Cheers.) That is the meaning —that is at the bottom of all these demands of what is your policy. From the first night we met, on the 4th of February, that has been the question. Parliament was called together by Ministers in distress to give them a policy. Parliament has maintained a dignified and discreet reserve, and now you find in what a position these Minis ters have pl,,ced the country. It is not for us to help these Min'sters in their foreign relations. The most we can do is ro tell the noble lord what is not our policy. We will not threaten and then refuse to act; we will not lead on our allies with expectations we do not intend io fulfil If it ever be the lot of myself and those with whom I act to carry out I he important negotiations of this country, as the noble lord and his colleagues have done, I trust we shall not at less; carry them on in such a manner as it will be our thy) , to come to Parliament and announce that we have no ally, aed then to declare that England can never act alone. (Cheers) These are words which ought never to have es caped the lips of any British Minister. (Cheers.) They are sentiments which ought never to have entered his heart. (Cheers.) I repudiate and reject them. (Cheers.) I re member that there was a time when England had not a tithe of our resources, when, actuated by a patriotic course, she triumphantly encountered a world in arms. (Cheers) And, air, I believe now, if the occasion were fit.ing—if our inde pendence and our honour were attacked and assailed—if our empire were endangered—l believe England would rise in the magnificence of her might, and struggle triumphantly for those objects for which men live and nations flourish. (Loud cheers.) But, sir, I for one will never consent to go to war to extricate Ministers from the consequences of their own indiscretion. And it is in this spirit that I have drawn up this address to the Crown. I have drawn it up in the spirit in which the Royal speech was delivered at the com mencement of the session. I am ready to vindicate the honour of this country when it is necessary, but I have drawn it up in the interests of peace. (Cheers.) Sir, I beg leave to move the address which stands in my name. (Loud cheers from the Opposition.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, who rose amidst loud cheers, said—Sir, I will venture to assure the right hon. gentleman that he shall have no ground to com plain of any attempt on the part of her Majesty's Govern ment to disguise or to escape from their responsibilities. (Hear, hear.) Whether, indeed, he his rightly discharged the duties of an Opposition—whether he has successfully vindicated the large motion he submits to the house—is a matter, I think, fairly open to inquiry; but as I admit honestly and fairly that his charges against the Government are bold and palpable, the first demand is that we should offer a defence. Therefore I make no apology to gentlemen who have placed amendments cn the paper, although I can well understand that the hon. member for Bridgewater (Mr Kinglake) and the hon. member for Warwickshire (Mr Newdegate) should, in the interests of England, substitute questions which really do involve a policy for a motion which involves none. (Hear.) At the same time it is our duty, while wholly refraining from any attempt to check free discussion, to meet the accusations which he has lavished upon the conduct of her Majesty's Government. Ndw, sir, it is as well to have something to agree on, and I am glad to find there is a starting-point which the right hon. gentleman and her Majesty's Government possess in common—l mean the starting-point concerning the pro ceedings of last summer and early autumn, and the decla ration made by my noble friend at the head of the Govern ment in the month of July, as being an euthoritative an neuncenient by my noble friend of his own opinion that the Treaty of 1852, entered into for the purpose of maintaining the independence and integrity of Denmark, would receive that support from united Europe under which it had origi nally Leen framed. I agree likewise he has fairly proved that my noble friend, in giving that opinion with respect to the probable conduct, the anticipated conduct, of the other Powers, patties to that treaty, likewise implied the readi ness of the Ministry of which he was the head to take their part in it. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman has likewise stated, and fairly stated, that at that period France and Russia were of the same mind. Up to that simple paint the right hon. gentleman and the Government are agreed, and 1 now set on a long and dreary journey of dissent. The right hon. gentleman says, in the month of September, there was a total change in the policy of France. I do not know that it is necessary or expedient that we should enter at this period upon the course taken by her Majesty's Go v rnmrnt wi!la respect to the Polish question. As far as I know, the Parliament of this country did not in either house act with regard to Poland on the principle of extreme reserve, On the contrary, both in the House of Lords and in the House Commons members did lift up their voices cn behalf of suffering humanity. (Hear, hear.) Sir. DISRAELI—Not by us only. Mr. GLADSTONE—Not in the least ; but I will add that th e most pronounce d c h a rge with respect to the auPposed conduct of her . ) ajes t y 's Government in regard to P o l and was this—that t h e no ble lord the Secre tary of State for Foreign Affairs had, by his declaration at the commencement of the discussion that we would not take up arms for Poland, entirely destroyed and crushed the hopes of the Poles. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentle man says there was a change in the policy of France in the month of September. Was there such a change f The right hon. gentleman has undoubtedly quoted a despatch of Mr. Grey to support the staternent which he has made ; and the right hen, gentleman gracefully apologised to the house for troubling it by quoting from despatches. I am more dis posed to complain of the sins of omission than the sins of commission. (Laughter, and hear, hear.) But the right hon. gentleman, while professing to disregard and pass over the immaterial and irrelevant portions of those despatches, refers to the mortification which France felt on account of the refusal of the joint application of the three Powers b' Russia, and he fairly quoted the resolution of rralace—a re solution at which none cant *cinder and none can complain —to avoid repeating a diplomatic measure of the same cha racter as that which had exposed her to the refusal of Rus sia. But the right hon. gentleman gave the house to under stand, or left it to be inferred, that the meaning of the de claration on the part of France was this—" Do not look for any more co-operation from me with respect to Denmark— our policy is changed; but if you had stood by us lit the case of Poland, I would havestood by you in that of Den mark. Inasmuch, however, as you abandoned me in respect to Poland, I will leave you to conduct your own affairs in reference to Denmark." (Cheers.) Sir, I will give again the very words of the despatch referred to by the right hon: gentleman, and you will see whether the words of Mr Grey were not very definite, and whether they did not bear an interpretation the most remote from that given by the right hon. gentleman. The words were written at the time that he says France was adopting a policy of inaction in refer ence to Denmark. What were the words of M. Drouyn de Lhuys ?—" France may not (his excellency said) be indiffe rent by any means to the maintenance of the integrity and independence of Denmark, and it was not from any indiffe rence that he disapproved of your lordship's suggestion; that he had already represented to the German Powers that if they invaded Holstein for the purpose of effecting a revolt in Schleswig, and if they went further and invaded Schleswig itself, they would be infringing on the rights of an inde pendent sovereign, and entering upon a grave question affecting the balance of power in Europe, to which France could not remain indifferent." (Applause.) And is it not the fact that all these expressions, when they came from the pen of my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, are treated as menaces, which are to bind us to go to war; but that, when they proceed from the mouth of the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, at the very moment when, as the right hon. gentleman says, France was re nouncing all co-operation with us, with regard to the Danish question, they are not considered in that light at all? (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman went on from the September stage to the November stage in these com plicated proceedings, and he referred to the discourteous terms in which the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs treated the proposal of the Emperor of the French for the assembling of an European Congress. My noble friend is a man of truth and honour, given to speak out with as little of circumlocution as circumstances would permit. (Laughter, and hear, hear.) Bat what course did the right honourable gentleman himself pursue ? Did he pursue a course calculated to mend our manners ? How did he describe the proposal made by the Emperor of the French ? On the 4th of February, 1864, this master of diplomatic courtesy—this statesman so caretul of the fine feelings of our neighbour, so sensible of the value of the aliiance between the two countries—somewhat curtly and somewhat succinctly, as I venture to think, described the proposition which had been made by the Emperor of the French for an European Congress as an " adroit manoeuvre.' (Oh, oh, and loud cheers.) I refer to this matter in order that I may meet the inferences which the right hon. gen tleman proceeded to found on our refusal to join in the Con gress, just as he found baseless inferences on our proceed ings in regard to Poland. He stated that we had refused the Congress in a manner that could not but be exceedingly disapproved of. He said that France, on the death of the King of Denmark, resolved to take no part in the question, and he quoted a despatch, dated December 19, from Lord Wodehouse to Earl Russell, in which he says General Fleury, the envoy at Copenhagen, had had instructions from the Emperor not to take part in any negotiations there, but to tell the Danish Government explicitly that, if Den mark was inclined to go to war with Germany, France would not come to her assistance. I am astonished that the hon. gentleman, bewildered, I suppose, with the study of these fifteeen hundred pages—most anxious, because his candour is well known to the world, and giving the fullest powe s of his mind to these papers—yet by some unlucky fate, some ill-natured star that crossed his good intentions, has almost in every case— and I will make good what I am now stating—has mis represented the real effect of those papers even which he has quoted. What did he say in this instance with respect to General Fleury ? It is true we received this statement from Copenhagen, and on receiving it we determined to verify it by referring to Paris. Accordingly, we referred it to Lord Cowley, who returned from M. Drouyn de Lhuys, with this important addition—for the right hon. gentleman says France had definitely reftried to take any part, in the question—M. Drouyn de Lhuys stated positively that no declaration had been made either by or to the K Mg of Den mark which did not leave the Emperor free to take any course which he might think fit. (Cheers and counter cheers.) Do hon. gentlemen opposite really mean that that is not a material part of the statement ? (Cheers.) Is that a policy of absolute renunciation. It was a very wise course on the part of the Emperor of the French, and it might have been wise and prudent on his part that he would not lend to Denmark his military support ; but that is not the policy which was enunciated by the right hon. gentleman, and it is totally d,ff,rent from the effect of the statement of General Fleury quoted by the right, honour • able gentleman, bec :use it is expressly stated that the Emperor of the French fully reserved to himself the right to enter into the Danish question as freely and as fully as he should think fit, (Hear, hear, and cheers.) I now come a step further in the statement of the right lion, gentleman, which I think contains an important point. The right hon. gentleman says, that in all cases where the Go vernment found themselves strong they were moderate in their lau_Tuage, but when they found themselves weak they became violent; and en that principle he accounts for the letter written on Dec. 25, for the purpose, he says, of me nacing the Diet in case they proceeded to Federal execution. Her: again I am sorry to say that the right hon. gentleman has not quoted the document fairly or truly. I am in the re collection of the house, and in the presence of the right hon. gentleman. In quoting the letter of Dec. 25, which he de scribes as one of great violence, he makes a mistake in one sentence of considerable importance. He says my noble friend menaces the Diet in case of their proceeding to Fede ral execution. He read the words generally and commented upon them. He read the wcrris "any precipitate action on the part of the German Confederation at the present moment may lead to consequences fatal to the peace of Europe." (Hear, hear.) But what is the preamble to that letter? Why, sir, it is not with respect to Federal execution at ail— it does not once mention Federal execution, nor has in any reference to it, which was the inference sought to be con veyed by the right hon. gentleman. But what was the pre amble to which I have referred ? The Diet sitting at Frank fort appears to claim a right to decide on questions of sus• cession in the several States composing the Confederation, and to be bent on asserting such a right in the present case —the case of Holstein. Therefore, I do not hesitate to say that the quotation of the right hon. gentleman does not give him a tittle of foundation for his argument. The question has no reference to Federal execution, but it had to the claim of deciding as to succession, which had been more or less made at diffaient periods by the German Diet, but which were not admitted to be part of their regu lar attributes and jurisdiction. Does any hon. gentleman imagine that the claim of the German Diet to determine the succession of Austria or Prussia would be allowed for one moment? But it was to this significant claim of the German States, and not to Federal execution, that the letter referred which was quoted by the right hon. gentle man, and quoted, I may say, in a manner which entirely , falsifies its purpose and effect. (Oh, oh, from the Opposi tion benches.) I say he quoted it for the purpose of illus trating our menaces against Federal execution ; and I speak in the pretence of hon. members who can judge of the words of the right hon. gentleman and the inference which was sought to be conveyed by the quotation. I now come to the despatch quoted by the right hon, gentleman, and here again I am sorry to say I cannot speak of his quotation in any other terms than those which I have already used. (Oh, oh, and hear.) I come to what I may call the lugubrious despatch of Dec. 29. The house will remember that in quoting the despatch the right hon. gentleman resorted to the fa!lest use of his comic powers of description—(loud laughter, and oh)—of voico and of warning. We all re member the plaintive tones with which he described her Majesty's Government as addressing itself to France. Her Majesty's Government, he said, were most sincerely desir ous to act with the Imperial Government on this question. This letter referred to the proposal m ide by the British Government for a Conference on the Danish question ; and the right hon. gentleman read on, and said that when M. Drouyn de Lhuys expressed a general desire to co-operate with England Lord Cowley remarked that it would be a curious thing if a difference of opinion prevented co-opera tion, and that no answer was made. He said that he had made an application to France to join us in a European Conference on the affairs of Denmark, to which Lord Cowley could not get an answer from M, Drouyn de Lhuys; and that, finding that he could not obtain an answer, he felt himself bound to wind up the conversation with the ex pression of a hope that the difference of the opinion about the Congress in reference to Poland would not prevent co operation with regard to the affairs of Denmark. There the right hon. gentleman stopped, but what was the inference he drew ? Was it not that France had rejected the proposal of the Conference? Unless it had that meaning, it had none at all, for the whole gist of his argument was to show that long after Franco had resolved on a course of action, and had announced it to Denmark, we went to Pads, bor ing France and pestering her with proposals to which she would not listen or consent. Again I say he has misled the house ; and whether he has or not the house will judge for itself when I have read a few words from the despatches which were quoted by the right hon. gentleman. In the conversation of Lord Cowley and M. Drouyn de Lhuys, Lord Cowley says :—" I presume I may give them assurance that the Emperor's Government are not prepared to reject the motion of the conference;" and M. Drouyn de Lhuys replied—'. The Imperial Government are anxious to prevent a war, and if i , saw its way to prevent it through a Con ference, it would not refuse to take part in it." (Cheers,) The right hon. gentleman described what he called the Em peror's policy of renunciation. But Lord Cowley says, "I have derailed, as far as time will permit, the general tenor of the conversation with M. Drouyn de Lhuys, and his ex cellency expressed an opinion that, if your lordship should also insist on knowing the intentions of the great German Powers, it would aid in bringing this question to an issue." That is what the right hen, gentleman thought fit to de scribe as a policy of absolute and positive renunciation and refusal. (Cheers.) Now I come to the revocation of the patent. The right hon. gentleman says the Danes revoked the patent on the recommendation, and abandoned resistance in Holstein on the recommendation of herMajesty'sGovern ment, and that they approved the new constitution when we asked them to do so. I am not here to bring an indictment against the Danes. When we recollect that the throne of Denmark is occupied by a sovereign who succeeded to it under eircumstances of great difficulty; and With an inheri tance of embarrassment caused by the Conduct of his prede cessor and the policy of the Ministers whom he found in power, I for one am not able to say with confidence that it was within the means of the present King of Denmark to unravel the difficulties with which he found himself beset; but at the same time I beg to say with respect to this, as well as to the other main allegations of the right hon. gen tleman, they are without the slightest foundation—(oh, oh) —and are not borne out by any of the quotations which he has made. He says that the Danes did this at our instance, My answer is that they did it at the joint instance of the Powers. He says they did it when we requested them to do so. My answer is, they were not done until the conces sion was too late, and was valueless for the purpose for which it was required. Now, let us see how the truth stands. I say, for the sake of wounding the Government, he fixes on the country responsibilities which she does not bear. Du not let it be supposed that this is a matter to be settled between party and party in the House of Commons, because England is bound by the engagements of her Ministers—(hear, hear)—and if the engagements are made by us, the right hon. gentleman, on his accession to power, would be bound to fulfil them in the sense which we attach to them. He says Denmark revoked the patent on our re commendation, and that that constituted a quasi-engage ment on our part. What is the fact ? On the 7th of October the British Government remonstrated against the patent, and advised its revocation. When was it revoked ? On the 7th of December, two months after; and not two months measured by time in the ordinary way, but by events of the greatest consequence. The new constitution had been passed, and the revocation of the patent when it came, as plainly appears from the conversation of Lord Wodehouse, was of the smallest importance. So much for the revocation of the patent. I think I heard the right hon gentleman say that M. Hall offered to revoke the patent in the month of October. I am aware that art offer was made in October to revoke it, but it was a conditional offer, for M. Hall stated that one of the conditions en which the patent would be withdrawn, would be that England and France should give the Danish Government a formal promise of ca-operation. In pint of fact, the revocation was withheld during the time it was of use, and granted only when it was of the smallest possible importance. The right hon. gentleman also said that on three great subjects Denmark had also acted upon our edvcie, and that contrary to her policy. bid the right hon. gentleman mean to say that Denmark acted upon our advice alone? (Hear, hear.) If he means to say that, I affirm that there is not the smallest founda tion for the statement. If he moans to say that Den mark acted at the instance of other Powers also, there is not the slightest force or value in his statement, because the concession made by Denmark was at the recommenda tion of all, and therefore there is no separate responsibi lity, as the right hon. gentleman would endeavour to show. I think it is pretty clear, first, that the advice to the Danish Government was common advice; and, secondly, that it was advice in regard to which they were dis tinctly informed that her Majesty's Government could not be responsible for the consequences of the decision Denmark might take with respect to Federal execution, It is just the same with regard to the new constitution. The right hon. gentleman says that England was selfishly silent upon the subject of the new constitution. He gave the House to understand that when good might have been done by remonstrance—England left Denmark to take her own course; and subsequently, when it became difficult for Denmark to recede, then England came with inopportune advice, and desired that the new constitution might be revoked—selfishly silent at that critical moment when the King of Denmark had just come into his too burdensome heritage, and even with this unhappy and ill omened bill waiting hie decision. I think it was on Nov. 15 that he came to the throne, and on the 17th my noble friend (Earl Russell) wrote to Lord A. Paget, unwilling to force advice upon the King at that critical moment, but indicating that his advice would be that the new constitu tion should be suspended. The right hon. gentleman quoted the despatch in support of his statement, and con tinued—Unhappily that advice was not acted upon. Un happily, the position of the King, in the face of the popu lace of Copenhagen, appears to have been such as to make it impossible for him to take the course which, in the opinion of her Majesty's Government and in the opinion of the other neutral Governments, international obligations strictly interpreted required. Consequently the complica tions which existel underwent great and serious aggravation. Unhappily, the revocation of the constitution, like the other concession, altholigh made, was made too late. (Cheers.) On 2 , ov. 17 Earl Russell suggested suspension of the con stitution , the Danish Parliament was still sitting, and would have had power to revoke it, but unhappily the Danish Minister, who, I fear, has unintentionally been one of the worst enemies to Denmark, permitted the Parliament to be dienoived without touching the constitution, and so let the King into a state of hopeless embarrassment. At last, on Jan. 19, when Federal execution was far advanced in Holstein, and when the Prussian and Austrian forces were about to enter Schleswig, then it w is that for the first time au offer was made by the Danish Minister, Bishop Monrad, to call together the Rigsraed, and revoke the con stitution. The statement therelore of the right hon. gen tleman is either wholly .allacious, if it be not directly the reverse of truth. These are the specific allegations made by the right hon. gentleman, and I will now, with some diffi dence and apprehension, venture to explain what I take to have been the principles and policy of the Government in this matter. The right hon. gentleman stated with truth that a considerable change was effected in the position of this question by the death of the King of Denmark. The death of King Frederick VII. altered the position of affairs in respect to the treaty of 1852. It immediately laid the whole strain upon that treaty and upon its construction. As long as Frederick VII. was alive there was nothing but a question of international engagement. The matter in dis pute was whether international covenants had been fulfilled or not. There was no question of disputed title ; but when Frederick VII. died, and King Christian IX. came to the throne, the question of succession, connected with various constructions of the treaty, immensely aggravated the quest- Lion. The policy of her Majesty's Government under Fre derick VII. had been to endeavour to bring the Danes to fulfil the treaty of 1852, and to bring th e G er mans to be moderate in their views. But the right hon, gentleman ap pears to make it a charge against the present Government that they should have taken, as it were, gratuitously, and needlessly, a prominent part in the settlement of those matters. He says truly that England has no peculiar in • terest in these questions. It has been said by my noble friend (Earl Russell) more than once in these despatches, that the interests of England in the Dano-German question are the interests of Europe, We can conceive that France, for traditional association, and also for her peculiar relations with Germany, might have a special and direct interest in any such questions as would be involved in the absorption of Denmark into Germany ; we can conceive that Russia, principally dependent upon the Baltic for access to the great ocean countries of the world, might feel a very strong and peculiar interest in the questi on whether D enm ark and Sweden were to be united into one Scandinav i an ki n gdom; but England has no special and separate interest. Why then did she take—it was certainly a prominent—par t in these negotiations ? She took part on accenat of w hat I hope will ever be dearer to England th an h er i nterests ,—viz., on ac count of what she though t h er honour an d h e r duty. (Cheers.) Gentlemen must l oo k to the prev i ous s t a ges of the question if they wish to appr ec i ate the pos i t i o n of England during the recent complications. At the period of the war, in 1819, the mediation o f E ng l an d was invited by the contending parties—(hear)--erieinally at the suggestion of Prussia, and adopted by Den:ark, and forwarded to my noble friend (Earl Rus se ll) , who was t h en Secretary of State, and by him unde r t a k en. That was a great responsi bility, but was it a barren one? On the contrary, it ended in the cessation of the s h e d ding of human bl o od, being in terms of pacification, in t reaties which were d e emed by both parties honourable a n d sat i entetery. The rignt hon. gentle man quoted the expr ess i ons of thankful ac k no wledgment to Lord Palmerston from D enmark for the succe s s ful result of hrs efforts, and continu e d : After procee di n gs of that kind so beneficial to both parties, and so honourable to this coun try—(cheers) —it w as not possible for t h e re p r esentati ve o f England to recede fro m t h e prom i nen t post in which he had been placed by no a c t o f his own, but by the obligations re sulting from forme r transactions o f the most satisfactory and beneficial kind. H ere, I think is a ful l an d a mple explana tion of the cond uc t and gen e ral pos i t i on a ssumed by m y nTohbelerigfrhietnhdonw.itghontrieogruarada stays o t h e Danish negotiations. (Cheers) I really w i s h the right hon. gen tl em a n , i n attack ing his opponent s , would remember his coun t r y. (L aug ht er .) th a t it was to Russia that settlement was d ue . I have quote d th e a uthenti c wor d s which show th a t my noble friend was the person who was regarded by Den mar k as the princ i pa l. Up o n th e acces sion of the new King the duty and endeavour of the Bri tish Governm en t was to maintain the trea t y o f 1852. W as that right or w rong ? Nov, is it honourab le to P arliament that the right hon. gentlem an should come down here, and in mimic voice h o ld up to ridicule t h e con d uc t o f th e Ad ministration, b ecause they instruct the i r representat i ves abroad to apply to Franc e and Russia--co-signataries—for assistance in giving effect to a great treaty ? Why, the right hon. gentleman in one of his declamatory bursts towards the close of his speech, totally forgot the argumentative part where he exhibited it as preposterous meanness on the part of England that she should apply to France and Russia. Li the declamatory part he came round to better sense than he exhibited in the logical and argumentative part, for ho said th at with Eng l an d an d F rance un i te d war is difficult, and with England, France, and Russia united, war is impossible. (Cheers, and counter cheers.) Well, but the whole of the steps taken by her Majesty's Government, almost without exception, were steps taken to endeavour to bind together the powers of Europe for the fulfilment and maintenance of an important European en gagement. (Cheers.) For some time after the death of the late King there was no great reason to suppose that the Treaty of 1852 was in serious danger. It was only at the end of November that the now doctrine was coined in Prus sia and Austria that the treaty of 1852, by nearly which all Europe was bound, was nothing more than a part of the same transactions with the special conventions of 1851-2 bet Ween Germany and Denmark; and that unless those covenants were fulfilled the treaty of 1852 would be null and void. Thal, was the formidable doctrine which at that time into view. On the 28th of November, I think it was, that langnage began to be held by the German Powers Which greatly altered the position of the case. As long as they recognised what we ha%'e always held to be their obli gations tinder the treaty of 1862 there was comparatively little danger but when they held themselves free to make the treaty of 1852 dependent upon the condition of fulfil ment or non-fulfilment of which they were competent to pronounce—for it was a separate engagement between them and Denmark-athen it became obvious that the dangers were greatly thickening round us, and that it was a ques tion whether the treaty of 1802 would be fulfilled in its loyal > nd intended sense. Undoubtedly it was at that pe riod that her Majesty's Government undertook the gravest responsibility which has been laid upon them at any stage of this difficult question. They did make application to France and to Russia on the sth of January, on the 10th, and on the 18th, which applications conteXelated the for• mation of an alliance to give aid and assistance to Den mark, to uphold it in the Duchies against foreign force and intrigue. The right hon. gentleman, who has found it necessary to censure everything done by the Go. vernment, felt it necessary to censure also this, He said that on the 18th of January you wrote a letter which would have put Europe in a blaze. Sir, the letter to bring about the concert and co-operation of France and Russia with England, he says, would put Europe in a blaze, though 15 minutes afterwards he maintained that France, England, and Russia being united, war was impossible. (Cheers and laughter.) I must say I was surprised, con sidering the disproportionate weight which the right hon. gentleman laid upon a point of trifling moment, that, when he came to this great passage of European policy, he satis fied himself with breaking out into ill-considered reproach of her Majesty's Government. We did write this letter. We believed that it was for the interests of Europe that the treaty of 1852 should be supported, and we stand here re sponsible for having acted on that belief. (Jheers.) Has the right hon. gentleman an opinion on the policy, or has he not? (Cheers.) I wish we could dive into the recesses of his mind. (Laugthter.) I complain of the reserve of the right hon. gentleman. fie is as bad as a miser with his money—one cannot get out of him the smallest inkling of what is to be the future policy of the country He talks a great deal of the policy of the Government, but when it touches a question of policy he will not give an opinion. (Cheers.) He has brought forward a motion which aims at giving a mortal blow to the Government. Here is by far the most important proceeding which the Gaverament has taken, this letter of Jan. 18, the proposal for the co-operation in support of the treaty of 1852, and yet the right hon. gen tleman who asks the House of Commons to condemn the Government in the capital article of their conduct, passes this by in silence because he cannot give an opinion with out intimating something about his policy. (Cheers.) The Government have no desire to have that passed over. They thought it their duty to make those efforts to obtain co-operation for the purpose of preventing that which has happened—from a treaty being set aside by external force —and they invite a verdict upon their conduct. (Cheers.) I am not here to blame the Governments who declined to concur in that proposal. I think that in the case of an engagement like the treaty of 1852, the persons really responsible for the failure, and all the consequences of failure, are those who recede from their plighted faith, (Cheers.) The Emperor of the French was entitled to say, when one party had abandoned the treaty, "I must look at the interests of France." He did look at that. and we cannot and do not blame him for the resolution which he took. Although we freely and frankly admit that the peculiar position of Russia with reference to Prussia some what impairs her independence and dignity, and the strength of her position in all European questions where the German Powers are concerned, yet we do not accept,it as a matter of charge or blame imputable to us that we made a serious effort to rally the Po wers of Europe in sup port of the treaty of 1852. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that this singlehanded intervention of England in European questions is a course of proceeding which . can be justified. A system has grown up of late, of which the treaty of 1852 was a notable example, where the Powers of Europe have formed themselves', as it were, into a police, fur the maintenance of the general peace, apart from all separate and selfish objects, and with the single view and purpose of putting down the wrongdoer, whoever he may be. This in one sense was the meaning of the treaty of 1852. I think that was an honourable course, that the community of interests should be recognised in the form of these great international facts and conventions, which aim at keeping peace by the use of the collective forces of the civilised world, which is the beat guarantee that it can pos. sibly receive. (Hear.) Therefore leait be clearly understood that, if the right hon. gentleman were to challenge the con duct of the Government in their endeavours to enlist France and Russia for the preservation of European peace, let him say so. (Hear, hear.) We are ready to abide by the judgment of the house and of the country upon that issue. Then, says the hen, gentleman, having got into Conference, you provided for the integrity of Denmark by cutting off Holstein and part of Schleswig, and placing it under the tutelage of all the Powers of Europe. There is a great deal of weight in that description; but we do not at all disguise that, after the failure of that application to Franca and Russia, our tone was lowered. If you fled fault with the tone of my noble friend before this, my answer is, that language w , ich W 3 held at first was uniform with the language of France at the some period— and that it was in contemplation of the contingency which afterwards was not realised—viz , that the Powers would find themselves in a condition to co-operate for the main tenance of the treaty, Where does the right hon. gentle man find the language of menace after the date at which we became aware that menace could not be practically car ried into effect? I am not aware of a eingle word which has been ascribed to my noble friend as being likely to be construed into a menace by i the Garman Pewers after we once became aware of the fact that a European com bination could no longer be relied upon in support of the treaty of 1852. The right hon. gentleman, I think, said we were right in declining to go to war single-handed. In the Conference, having found that it was impossible to give full effect to what we conceived to be the spirit of the treaty of 18b2, we did the best we could for Denmark. (Cheers.) No doubt, gentlemen would have done better, but we did as well as we could, as well as France could, as well as Russia could, as well as Sweden could. As long as we can show that the proceedings which we took were proceedings of the neutral Powers who represented the public sentiment of Europe, and the impartial judgment of the world, I do not think the right hon. gentleman will succeed in driving home the deadly weapon which he has aimed at our breast. (Cheers,) The treaty of 1852 contemplated securing a com bination ander the Crown of Denmark, after a new accession to the throne, of all the territories that were attached to the Crown under Frederick 11. Now the treaty of 1852 would have been perfectly satisfied by what is called a personal union. If we had advised Denmark to pursue the phantom of literal compliance with the treaty of 1852, we should have advised her to do that which sae was deter mined not to do. Therefore, if the right hon. gentleman charges us with having been parties to proposing in the Conference a reduction of the Danish territory, 1 say we &el that which was not only most in accordance with the interests, but that which was also most agreeable to the wishes of Denmark, for if she could not have a virtual incorporation of the whole of Schleswig, she wanted to have an incorporation of a portion of Schleswig. The proposal of the line of the Schlei was first made by us with the con currence of the other neutral Powers ; and I think that proposal was more agreeable to Denmark than any other which could have been made with the slightest hope of bind ing the German Powers. The house is aware there are ample reasons why England should not undertake what might fairly be called the Quixotic enterprise of waging single-handed the war which offered itself to us under the circumstances, (Ministerial cheers.) The tax upon the Eng lish energies would have been totally disproportioned to the object in view. The want of support and special interests, in the absence of positive engagements, was a matter which it was the absolute duty of the Government to consider. But if England were to make that war, and to make it with effect, it was aware that it could not be confined to Denmark only. Its limits must have been vastly extended. It must at once have gone down to the Adriatic—(cheers)—it must have become a general war in Europe. And although there might be objects which the Government might believe would be among the possible results of such a war, and which might be of great value to humanity, yet that responsibility was a responsibility from which the boldest man would shrink. (Ministerial cheers.) And then England might, more than any other nation, have found this a most deplor able position, for she might ultimately discover that the judgment she had taken of the justice of the case was a► different judgment from that of the population of the Duchies themselves. (Cheers.) What British House of Commons would have sustained a Government who endea voured to thrust down the liberties of a people ? (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman has, with marvellous adroitness, contrived to avoid every possible topic or issue involving the slightest question as to what ought or what ought not to have been our line of policy. The right hon. gentleman has put to the house a motion which I will now proceed to examine. Having met his charges, and I hope fairly challenged the judgment of the house on the subject, I hold myself free to take my turn as a critic and a judge. (Hear, hear.) This is in many resp cts a remarkable motion. (Laughter.) It is a motion the production of which has been heralded, like the birth of Julius Caesar and other great mea of old, by omen and prophecy. On an early day in the session the right hon gentleman came out as a prophet and said, " We will question the foreign policy of the Government." On another day the member for Huntingdon took up the para ble of the right hon. gentleman, and at a late hour ono even ing he announced--" I give you my word you shall have a motion on the foreign policy of fhe Government." And a third solemn announcement was made, which is interesting because it proves that since the commencement of the ses sion—that is, for about five months—this motion has been in the course of incubation, and the terms of it have had the advantage of being revolved over anti over again in all the brains of all the wisest gentlemen in the country, namely, those who are siting opposite. (Cheers and laughter.) The right hon. gentleman has made a motion of which we quite understand the meaning and purport. I will show that it is not so plain spoken as it ought to be; but still it is intended to put an end to the existence of the present Go vernment. And now perhaps the house will pardon me if I relate an anecdote. There is in a beautiful churchyard in Kent an epitaph which commemorates a lady and gentle man who were murdered by a domestic servant, and the writer of the epitaph, in his anxiety to give it a pious and Christian tone, has written that it was a very great advan tage to them, after all, to be got rid of by this summary method of proceeding, as they were freed from the incon veniences and discomforts that usually attend dissolution in the ordinary course. (Loud laughter.) When I read this it occurred to me that the right hon. gentleman was about to perform for the Government the kind office which the domestic servant performed for the old lady and gentleman. (Renewed laughter.) But, looked at from another point of view, the right hon. gentleman has raised a purely per sonal matter. We have heard the tone of the right hon, gentleman to-day. He looked at the noble lord, and spoke of his miserable incapacity. Again, I find the memory of the right hon. gentleman a short memory, because by and bye he went on to descrioe what had been the foreign policy of this country since the peace of 1815, and he described it as a successful policy. Did he recollect that the man whom accused of miserable incapacity had been the main agent that policy for more th an h a lf th e ti me w hi c h in condue- "n g peace of 1815 ? (Mi n i s t er i a l c h e er s .) has elapsed since the motion ? It is t o ge t us out What is the meaning ot:. his of our places, and to let them corn,: into them. But when that issue is raised without reference to colicy, it is a dis agreeable motion for discussion by those whostill have clinging to them any remains of the modesty of their yoth. The right hon. gentleman, however, has no such difficulty. (Laughter.) He has applied to us the term "miserable incapacity." Several Hole. MEMBERS—He said "intense incapacity." Mr. DISRAELI—What I said was " utter incapacity." (Opposition cheers.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—WeII, utter incapacity, intense, or miserable, or whatever it may be, he at all events challenges a comparison with those who may succeed them. He says, "By your gross mismanage ment you have offended all your allies," (Opposition cheers, and counter-cheers from the Ministerial benches.) He seems to think that that is true because we have failed in averting a war. The right hon. gentleman might have a little compassion from a recollection of h.s own career. (Laughter.) There was a war when he was a Minister, which the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Malmesbury, did not succeed in staving off. On the 18th of April, 1859, the right hon. gentleman told us that he was well satisfied there would be no war ; but on the 22d the Austrians commenced the war. (Ministerial cheers.) I appeal to the memory of their own transactions as a justification of what was done in the case of Denmark. In point of fact, the motion means this : —" Let the noble lord and his colleagues get out of the way, and let us get in, and then everybody will be well-behaved, and all will go on smoothly." It reminds me of the appearance of 2Eneas amongst the shades of the old Greek heroes, when they began to run away from him : "At Danaum proceres, Agamemnoniceeque phalanges, Ut videre virum, fulgentiaque arma per umbras, Ingenti trepidare metu ; paro vertere terga." (Laughter.) Then the right hon. gentleman gets on the high horse, and refuses to give us the slightest idea of his policy, beaause that, he says, would be accepting office on conditions. (Cheers.) He has contrived a motion which is full of animosity and poison towards the life of the Govern ment; but look at it as a declaration bearing on the public policy, and it is pale and colourless as a ghost. The chief allegation is that the just influence of England has been lowered. Now let me deal with that. In the first place I deny it; and in the second place I hold that, if it were, it is not a seemly declaration to be recorded by Parliament. (Loud Ministerial cheers.) Why is the just influence of England said to have been lowered ? Is it because we have failed in averting war ? If there has been a failure there have also been honest, upright, generous efforts made to prevent great masses of mankind from injuring and destroy ing one another. (Cheers.) Ministers who in vain endea vour to calm troubled waters may at the time reap no other reward than in resentment and disapprobation; but yet the recollection will abide that the voice of England was raised for moderation and justice. (Cheers.) The effort of the Go vernment was to teach wisdom to those who were obstinate, and mercy to those who were tyrannous and strong. It is said that this case is without parallel, Let me, however, go back to the case of Mr Cameing. Never was there a more conspicuous failure, so far as the itidgment of the moment was concerned, than that of Mr Canni n g in the case of the invasion of Spain by FranCe, but there is ne more honour able chapter in the whole history of the foreign Tolley of England. (Ministerial cheers.) Let us therefore look a little beyond the present moment, and let us discard if u'e can the Epicurean temper which is so strong in its vision of those things which lie near, but is blind as a bat to everything that pertains to the future. I repeat that I do not believe the just influence of this coun try has been lowered. (Cheers.) By whom is that lan guage held? Why, by a certain portion of the foreign press ; and when I read the motion of the right hon. gen tleman, it seems to me to be an echo, and nothing better than an echo, of the almost ribald language of a few obscure journals on the continent. (Ministerial cheers.) It is from them that this intending Minister draws his inspiration; it is from that quarter that the lessons of English policy are to be learned. I have denied that the just influence of Eng land has been lost, and, as far as my knowledge goes, this is the first occasion on which the British House of Commons has been called upon to record, for the purpose of displacing a Government, the degradation of their country. (Loud cheers.) Why cannot the right hon. gentleman speak plainly ? Why cannot ho adopt the language used by our forefathers on these occasions, and move au address to the Crown that the Government did not deserve the confidence of the house ? The right hon. gen tleman was afraid to raise that issue. He did not dare even now to resort to the old and constitutional form of a vote of want of confidence. And because he was not bold he thought he was wise. (Laughter.) All I can say is that the right hon. gentleman has never so poisoned the minds of any combination of gentlemen in this house as to induce them to place on record that which must be regarded as dis honourable to their country, Go back to the times of Sir Robert Walpole, of Lord North, and of Mr. Fox, and never will you find a sterile, jejune affair like this proposed to the House of Commons. Whatever was then raised by the Opposition was spoken outright in the good old Eng lish manner. (Cheers.) I think I have now detained the house long enough. I have endeavoured to avoid lead ing them into the almost innumerable phases of this long correspondence, and I have followed the right hon. gentle man on every point he chose to submit. And I do not know that there is any portion of it which ho might have com mented upon, where it would not have been equally practicable to follow him. Whatever may be his argu ments, I am confident that the house will not be led astray by the motion. Let him, if he pleases, sheL er himself under the irresponsibility of Opposition ; but that doctrine will not bear being pushed to extremes, and never has it been pushed to such an extreme as it has been to night by the right hon. gentleman, In vain does the right hon. gentleman say, " You must place me on that bench, and then let me tell you what I propose to do." I do not think the country will consent to a change on these condi tions. Nay, more, I feel the most confident conviction that the house and the Gauntry will approve of the course taken in these difficult negotiations by her Majesty's Govern ment I and that the house will reject a motion which both prudence and patriotism emphatically reject. (The right hon. gentleman was loudly cheered as he resumed his seat.) Mr NE WDEGATE moved, by way of amendment, to substitute for the second paragraph in Mr Disraeli's motion the following words :—" To submit to her Majesty the opi nion of this house, that the independence of Denmark and the posseesions of that kingdom, on the terms proposed by the representatives of the neutral Powers in the recent Conference, ought to be guaranteed." He was not prepared to admit that this country stood degraded before the world, although there would be no doubt that, by the confession of the Government, she was isolated from her allies on the question of Denmark. He moved his amendment to the resolution, because the right hon. gentleman had disavowed on his own part any intention, had he been in office, of in terfering in defence of the Danish monarchy; and if that would have been the right hon. gentleman's policy the house was right in continuing its confidence to her Majesty's Go vernment. He by no means intended to advocate war; and the object of his amendment was that the house should de clare its readiness to co-operate with our allies before the evils ensued which Lord Palmerston recently foreshadowed, the bombardment of Copenhagen and the capture of the King, events which seemed to be not far distant, judging by the violent conJuct of the German Powers. Tho amendment having been seconded by Mr. GOZE LANOTON, Mr. KINGLAKE objected to the amendment, that inas much as the disputed territory north of the Schlei was now in possession of the German forces, to propose to guarantee that territory was simply to propose war, and create a Ha. bility to war to all time. In the decisf on at which the Government had arrived he entirely concurred; and with regard to the house he contended that there had been a long acquiescence on its part in the foreign policy of the Go vernment up to the very period at which Mr. Disraeli had given notice of his motion. General PEEL, whilst disclaiming all party considera tions, gave his most cordial support to the motion. The Ministry, he said, ever since they threw over the Reform Bill, had existed solely upon their foreign policy and the popularity of the Premier; but the only result was that the Foreign Secretary had offsnded everybody, and shown that he had one policy for the weak and another for the strong. The Prime Minister had stigmatised the invasion of Jutland as an outrage upon the independence of Den mark. There was a time when a declaration like that would have been looked upon by all foreign Powers as bind ing as if it had been delivered by the most despotic monarch. This war of words was neither safe nor honour. able. If the policy of the country was to be peace at any price, silence and non-interference would have become us better. If we were too rich to be drawn into war by any amount of provocation, it would be beat to say so at once; but what would bs said of a man who declined to defend his honour because oe was too rich to be shot at ? If this were the language held by England we should indeed de solve to b 3 called a nation of shopkeepers; but the shop keepers of the last generation l n uy how to defend l their honour, and he him s elf was proud t o have spr un g f rom 9 such a race. He regre tt e d to say h.9' Majesty's G overn mour and re nown meat had done nothi ng t o ma intain the . of England in a critical con j unc ture, On tri, contra ry, they had made her the open scorn of her enemies e lid the shame and derision of surrounding nations. The LORD ADVOCATE maintained that the, "e vea s no ground whatever for the censure which the res, 'lnt ions implied upon the Government. He argued that they 1. lad not held out delusive promises to Denmark, but from fit at to last that their language had been of a totally dileres it description. To Germany they had not addressed menaces., but language that was suited to the occasion. ‘Vhatev er the expectations encouraged or warnings given, the Go vernment had shown that theywer e ready to act up ter thetra,• Under all circumstances, Ministers were perfectly right it not going to war ; and he thought they were entitled to look back upon the past with the feeling that they had done: their duty. Lord STANLEY said that the learned lord had taunted General Peel with inconsistency in denouncing treaties of guarantees, while he had been a party to the treaty of 1852. But, in the first place. Gen. Peel was not a member of the Cabinet of Lord Derby, by which that treaty was concluded ; in the next place, it was not a treaty of guarantee; and in. the third place, all the negotiations which led to it were conducted by Lord Palmerston. He denied that the rcsolus Lion was a war resolution. The right hon. gentleman the: member for Bucks had distinctly told the House that if he: had been in office he would have pursued the course taken; by France. and told Danmark from the first that she had nothing to hope for from us in the way of material as.;ist• once. The Chsneellor of the Exchequer had condemned 881 , et,. .1y the terms of the resolution. He was very anxious that, i m ,:ead of it, th e Op pos iti on s h ou ld h ave pro p ose d a vote of censt,:re. No doubt that would have been very convenient for the Government, because then, when hard pressed on one subject, they could have fallen back upou another. But he could see no reason why, if the Opposition thought that foreign affa tie had been badly managed they should not say so. The' ,resolution meant that they thought the Government had blundered their negotiations from beginni n g to end, a ud that they asked the House to say so. Th en th e Ch a ucellor of the Exchequer charged th e Opp os iti on wi tell striking at the Government through the bosom of the coun try, and trading upon the humiliation of the country, (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman had re tCarkad that the language of the resolution was =precede:a. 'ted. (Hear, hear.) He (Lord Stanley) had not comedown to , t he house with a bundle of precedents to show what had take. u place on former occasions of this kind, but he very much questioned whether the language of the resolution, and thee speech of the right hon. gentleman (Mr Disraeli) were not. mild and moderate compared with what had before been used in that house in 1763, 1782, 1795, and 1796. Whatever the resolution might be, it was not a resolution in favour of a policy of drifting into war. If it were, he could only say for himself, and he believed for many sitting on the same side of the house, that no reasons would induce them to support it. He should at once declare that to engage in a European war for the sake of the Duchies would be an act not of impolicy, but of insanity. He thought that a policy cA.: peace was compatible with being respected and honoured in Europe, and that we might have enjoyed such a position if we had taken the precaution of saying to Denmark that we would give her moral support, but that we would sot go any further. What he complained of was, the total want of policy on the part of the Government. He did not elieve there had been at any time a deliberate determination to adopt a policy either of war or peace, He did not profess to. fear that we should drift into war as in 1853, for he believed that the common sense of the country would be to) strong for diplomatists who were disposed to do so. Still, it was quite possible that such a policy might be adopted that we must either support it with war or retire from it with dis credit. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) This was the state of things with which the resolution of his right hon. friend professed to deal ; and he thought that his right hon. friend was justified in making the protest which he had. (Cheers.) If an appeal was made from the decision of this house to the country, their (the Conservative) side of the house would face the appeal without fear. (Loud cheers from the Opposition.) He did not think that gentlemen on the other side would have much to go to the country upon, except that France had been snubbed, that Germany had been insulted, that Denmark lad been abandoned, and Poland encouraged to revolt. (Loud cheers.) Mr Cobden and Mr Roebuck both rose at the same mo ment, but there were loud cries of" Adjourn, adjourn," and "No, no." After a brief interval, Mr COBDEN moved the adjournment of the debate un— til to-morrow (Tuesday), which was carried, and the majo• rity of the members present at once left the hotse, The house then adjourned at 20 minutes past one. COUNTRY MARKETS. -..............•,1,...+.,,...-..... COLCHESTER -JULY 2. -- At this corn exchange to-day there was a small show of wheat, and in the few sales made former prices were about realised. Spring corn unaltered. Wheat, white. 42a 46s Beans, Mazagaz .. 28s 32::. red 3Bs 42s middle & small.32s 36s Barley Oats .... ...,.20s:. 258 grey ......348 368 NORTHALIPTON-JULY 2. About the usual show of wheat to-day, and the demand good, last week's rates being slightly higher. Not much doinein barley. Oats and beans scarce, and is to 2s up. —White wheat, new, .38s to 42s ; hew red, 38s to 41s ; old, 38s to 40s per qr. Barley, new waiting, 24s to 36s— grinding, 26s to 33s per qr. Oats, 19s to 30s per 24 stone,. Beans, 34s to 38s. Peas, 32s to 36s per qr. GLOUCESTER-JuLy 2. There was a fair attendance of farmers at market to-day, with a small supply of English wheat, which sold freely at the prices of last week. Foreign wheat in extremely limited demand, with no alteration in value. Spring corn firm, and a fair business doing. CHELMSFORD-JULY 1. We had a fair show of wheat on offer at this market to-day, and the trade showed about the same briskness as last week. Wheat, old white 30s 45s new 43s 47s old red 345 378 new 36s 40s Barley 25s 33s Chevalier 26s 36s Grinding 20s 28s Malt.... Chevalier . 64s 68s Oats 2os 26s Peas, Partridge 36s 38a White 30s 34s Boiling 3Bs 42s Dun 31s 35s Ditto new —s —s Beans, Tick, :)1d 348 36s new -8 --s Harrow Ticks 34a 368 new Mazagan .......28s 333 KIRKCALDY GRAIN—JILY 2. We had good supplies of wheat at market, but small of barley and oats. Wheat sold slowly at the prices of last week, and oats were Gd per qr up. No change in barley. Wheat. Barley. Oats. First....36s Od I—a 6d lBs Od Second ..38s Od —s Od 19s Od Third....4os Od —s Od 21s Od COAL I‘.l frioea of Coal per 'Von al the close of the market. 8. d. valker Primrose l3 6 Wylam 16 0 tanfield Moor Butes 13 6 13yass's Bebside West Hartley ...16 9 C• Walls End. Harton 16 6 Tunstall ..16 6 Caradoc l7 6 Ships at /narks _ Walls End. It amen ...18 6 fieugh Hall .17 3 Kelloe South Kelloe 17 3 Hartlep00l East Hartlepool 18 3 South Hartlepool.... l7 3 Hetton lB 6 Cassop )t, 64 ; sold, 49. CRYSTAL PALACE, MONDAY.--ONE SHILLING DAY.—Admissions on payment, 8,099; ditto by season tickets, 1,200. Total visitors, 9,299. EADvEnTisEMENT.]-1101loway's Pill s —W ea k S tomach. — . .Che wisest cannot enumerate one quarter of the distress lug sympto ms ar i s i ng f rom enfeebled digestion; all of which might be readily dispelled by these admirable Pills. The remove all unpleasant tastes from the mo u th, fli tulency and constipation. Holloway's Pills rouse the stomach, liver, and every other organ, helping digestion to that healthy tone which fully enables it to convert all we eat and drink to the nourishment of our bodies. Hence these Pills are the surest strengtheners, and the safest restoratives in ner vousness, wasting, and chronic debility. Holloway's Pills are and in a fa multi llibl! tude remeofdies for impaired appetite, eructations h , other disagreeable symptoms whic render miserable the lives of thousands. Thes© Pills are approved by all classes. Births. DA -VIES..--On the 3d inst., the wife of Lieut.-Col. Davies, Grenadier Guards, of a son. MACCLESFIELD,—On the Ist inst., at 94, Eaton-square, the Countess of Macclesfield, of a son. M ONTGOMERIE.—On the 3d inst., at Westwood House, Sydenham, the wife of Hugh Edznonstone Ileatgoraerie, Esq., of a daughter. Marriages. COBBE—lirrox.—On the 2d inst., at Lewisham Church, Major C. H. Cobbe, to Louisa, youngest daughter of the late John Knox, Esq., of Greenwich, LANGFORD—MOZLEY.—O n the 2d inst., at St. Michael's, Chester-square, William, the only s on o f Lieut.-Colonel Langford, late 11 .E.1.d.5., to Grace, only daughter of the Rev. Thom as M ozley, of Finchampstead, Berks. Deaths. Cox.—On the Ist inst., at Monkstown, co, Dublin, Colonel Sir Wm. Cox, K.T.S., aged 87, DAY. v. D On the 2d inst., a t t h e Vicarage, Ellesmere, the Re J. . Day, aged 54. DwroN.,--On the Ist inst., 41t Bri g ht on , J o h n D alton, Esq , of Sl en i ng f ord Castle, Lincolnshire, aged 80. - Park, Yo r k s h ire, an d Fillingham DALTON. --At New Zealand, John Dolphin Dalton, eldest son of Wm. Dalton, F.R.c.s., Cheltenham, aged 30. GATES.—On tha 3d inst., at India-row, Poplar, James Gates, Esq., aged 84. WELSBY.— On the Ist lest:, W. N. Welsby, Esq , aged 62. WHEELER ---0 a the Ist inst., Edward Wheeler, Esq., of Birmingham. London: Prii,i;ed and Prb.fished by WILLIAM. ANDRE ;11.4, of No, 112, Strand, Printer, at litE SUN Office .\o. 1 1 2 , Strand, .11 the Precinct of the lavoy, n the co7:1/1 at M itidlecex —Tuesday, July 6,1884.